Thompson motivation hard to pinpoint

Text Size

Even his own aides say privately there are days when Republican seems disinterested in running for president.
Photo: AP

Fred Thompson prefers plain talk. So he might bridle at using a famous Winston Churchill quote to sum up his presidential campaign: "a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma."

But with fewer than 50 days to go until the Iowa caucuses, no piece of the primary puzzle is more perplexing than just what sort of impact the former Tennessee senator will have.

After a long-awaited and overly hyped debut, Thompson endured a gaffe-prone first few weeks. After suffering through lampooning so severe that it even broke through the pop culture bubble via "Saturday Night Live," Thompson has sought to bounce back by focusing on his true passion: policy and ideas.

Indeed, the opportunity to talk substance may be the only thing that’s keeping him in the race. Even his own aides and advisers acknowledge privately that there are days when he seems disinterested in running for president at all.

But Thompson soldiers on, and he is sure to be a factor in a contest so uncertain that no less than six candidates could play a significant role in deciding the outcome.

But just what sort of factor Thompson will be is as difficult to figure out as the motivations, work habits and true ambitions of the candidate himself.

“It’s getting a little late for Thompson, who may have squandered an almost unprecedented opportunity,” said American Conservative Union Chairman David Keene.

At times, Thompson seems almost invisible and irrelevant to the hour-by-hour combat that candidates like Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney have waged for months.

One example: After Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback dropped out of the race and there was an intense chase for his support, it was as though Thompson wasn’t even in the race. McCain and Giuliani scrambled for Brownback’s blessing — even if the benefits were marginal. But the possibility that Brownback would endorse his former Senate colleague wasn’t even discussed.

Then there are the grim recent polling data. Even though his campaign never held out much hope for charming the idiosyncratic Yankees of New Hampshire, Thompson’s numbers in the Granite State have plunged so embarrassingly low as to render him within the actual margin of error in some surveys.

More depressing for hardy “Fred-heads” is his come-down everywhere else. Mike Huckabee has, at least for now, supplanted him as the chief Romney alternative in Iowa. Romney and Giuliani are gaining on him in South Carolina, a state his campaign sees as essential to his chances. And in Florida, another must-win state imperative to Thompson’s Southern strategy and one where he has spent considerable time, Thompson has fallen far behind front-running Giuliani.

It’s this downward trajectory, along with much head-shaking over Thompson’s meandering style and haphazard work ethic, that has led many in the political class to all but write him off. The handy cliché is always to dub him as this year’s Wesley Clark: So much promise, so little delivery.

“Fred was a very fine candidate in 1994 in Tennessee,” said GOP pollster Whit Ayres. “But he has not run a serious race in 13 years and has had a rough time getting his sea legs back.”

Noting that there are “peaks and valleys in politics,” veteran Republican operative Greg Mueller added that the “Thompson camp is sliding toward the valley as Romney and Huckabee gain more traction in South Carolina and Iowa, respectively.”

But for all the derision Thompson has drawn, the GOP race remains an unpredictable one full of deeply flawed candidates.

Which is why Ayres, Keene and Mueller are all hesitant to completely dismiss Thompson’s chances.

“He’s far, far better now than he was in the first weeks,” said Ayres.

“[There’s] an outside chance that he might still get it together in time if the other candidates continue to cooperate by leaving the opening that it was thought he might fill months ago,” observed Keene.

“We are, politically, light years from the caucuses and primaries,” cautioned Mueller.

Such caveats are partially borne from the fluid nature of the race. But Thompson also has had some good moments of late.

“There was a certain level of frustration and disappointment, even before some of these poll numbers came out,” admitted a top Thompson adviser. “But things are looking a lot better than 10 days ago.”

To the surprise of many, he won the coveted endorsement of the National Right to Life Committee. And the NRLC nod was followed by two recent policy roll-outs — on Social Security and the military — that have generally won warm reviews. Thompson’s Social Security outline was praised by both the National Review and The Washington Post editorial page.

Readers' Comments (202)

But for all the derision Thompson has drawn, the GOP race remains an unpredictable one full of deeply flawed candidates. ~ The Politico

Thompson is showing signs of political wear. Playing to one's political base (where the money is) then having to reach across to the general consensus of voters is, certainly, no easy task. In fact it is daunting. There is often a huge divide separating the two. To build a bridge between the two demands good techniques of persuasion not to mention being a damn good liar.

And this is what is wrong with American politics these days, or at least, seems to be wrong. More or less, the base is out of touch with the general consensus of voters. The process of getting elected makes most politicians look like con artists who really intend to serve their base (where the money is) but have no remorse about using the voter (where the votes are), telling the latter what he or she wants to hear. This is the only way to get elected. But the Internet may change this. We can keep only hope.

FD Thompson would make an excellent POTUS! Unfortunately, he is a lousy candidate and the two go hand-in-hand. The system is flawed but it usually works. Sometimes a total misfit like Carter can sneak in. But, that said, the GOP nomination is still extremly fluid and so FD Thompson may be gathering strength at the right time. One sensational debate and a few great Sunday AM appearances and who knows?

I'm a Rudy supporter, but... I actually like Fred Thompson. I like that he's taken controversial positions on Social Security and abortion... which suggests to me that he's being honest (unlike Romney, who is conveniently in lock-step with the party platform). With that said, however, I just don't think he's our strongest candidate to take on Hillary (or whoever) next fall. I wouldn't mind seeing him in a Giuliani or McCain cabinet, though.

When Fred Thompson announced, the very first thing the press said was "He's lazy, unmotivated", planting that idean into everyones head. I like Fred and find him interesting when he speaks, YOu don't have to try and figure out where he stands on an issue like some on the left, he speaks slow so they can even understand it.

Fred Thompson would make a great president. He is strong and does not try to play to the polls. Even Rmoney, when he found out he was slipping in the polls was motivated to starat attacking Huckabee. Let's just see what happens

I'm a Rudy supporter, but... I actually like Fred Thompson. I like that he's taken controversial positions on Social Security and abortion... which suggests to me that he's being honest (unlike Romney, who is coincidentally in lock-step with the party platform). With that said, however, I just don't think he's our strongest candidate to take on Hillary (or whoever) next fall. I wouldn't mind seeing him in a Giuliani or McCain cabinet, though.

Absolutely agree rhino, also a Rudy guy, but FD Thompson makes waaaaay to much money in Hollywood to take a VP spot!

Ib4Fred, Romney never attacked Huckabee he just pointed out his record on immigration. Fred is the one that called Huckabee a pro life liberal. Why is pointing out someones record always called an attack? Romney talks about McCain-Feingold and he's attacking McCain. When he talks about Rudy and sanctuary cities he's attacking Rudy. Some people just can't defend their positions. It was Huckabee who couldn't defend his record about wanting college tuition breaks for children of illegals, so he got personal and went after Romney about workers cutting his lawn. That's a personal attack that has nothing to do with policy.

Fred Thompson is scum of the earth. Anyone who is a lobbyist can not be trusted with any office. We should never have lobbyists, we should have people running who are smart enough to make their own decisions and investigate things on their own, and not need people to tell them what to support or tell them what to think. Lobbyists breed corruption and bribery thats why they are scum and Thompson being one of them is also scum.

quote {again} "But for all the derision Thompson has drawn, the GOP race remains an unpredictable one full of deeply flawed candidates" All candidates of both sides could be considered 'deeply flawed'. But....Thompson does seem to have lost his place, the one he had before entering the race. No use crying over spilled milk. Social conservatives, 'true' conservatives, better start getting used to the idea of a 'flawed candidate' from the Republican side, or accept the inevitability of more Clintonian times.

I like Fred, too. He seems nice. I am sure he wouldn't beat a kitten's head in with a beer bottle. But being 'nice' is a very, very small part of the presidential package. One, also, must be well informed about the rest of the world, including its values and its religions. Besides this, one has to have a good knowledge of economics, American history, law, and philosophy.

Short of these basic requirements, one is opening the door to banality. And that is dangerous. For evil is likely only in the banal mind where there is an absence of the depth according to Hannah Arendt (she wrote the book, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil). If you are looking for a modern example, besides Eichmann, there is no mind more banal that Bush's. Recently, Sen. Bob Corker said of Bush, "I just felt a little bit underwhelmed by our discussions, the complexity of them, the depth of them."

Oh my gosh!! This tired story again? I really don't understand calling Fred Thompson lazy and questioning his motivation to be President. First of all, good for him that he hasn't been campaigning to be President since high school. The man feels an obligation to his country, and that is why he is running. You are correct to point out that he is at his best when talking about substance. Personally, I want a President that talks frankly about the issues, and he clearly has a plan. Which of the other candidates have laid out their detailed plans for the entire electorate to read, see and hear? With his Fox News Sunday appearance coming up, that will mark his 4th major policy initiative. Social security, immigration, national security and now tax reform. Wow, this is one lazy candidate. Give me a break.

Social security, immigration, national security and now tax reform. Wow, this is one lazy candidate. Give me a break.

It's just the way the in the bag for the Democrat MSM does things.

Wonder when you'll ever see a Democrat candidate being labeled as lazy or stupid?

They're promoting a woman right now who has little experience, temperment, or intelligence for the office, simply because she shares the same name with a former POTUS who couldn't get the support of 50% of the American voters in 2 Presidential elections. i was going to say shares the same bed, but in reality, like Barak's wife said, she can't even run her own home, and she wants to be elected to run ours?

I have to wonder why, if we want open and honest government and accountability from our leaders, we would turn to a profession that is all about parsing the language.

From where I'm sitting, what Daniel Boone said about politicians generally applies to lawyers as well. To paraphrase:

People who can take a bite from two different meals at the same time, and never have one touch the other in their mouths..............

The Senate's one thing, but I.M.O., the House should roughly be made up of the different working groups that have a stake in the National interest, roughly by percentage. I.e. 12% farmers = 12% representation, 60% small business owners = 60% representation.

What we have now is business and advocacy groups buying lawyers, who have no allegiance to anything, creating "the best government money can buy."